October 10, 2012

A lot of people in the media and some left-wing bloggers are starting to scratch their heads about the inability of Obama and other members of the campaign and the regime to stop talking about how badly he did in the debate. "Okay, you had a bad night. Forget it; move on. Why keep talking about it? Why keep reminding people how badly Obama did?" Ann Althouse in Michigan has an interesting theory about this, and I'll paraphrase her.

Paraphrasing me all the way to Michigan.

She said, essentially, that the reason the campaign will not let go of how poorly Obama did is that they want everybody to think that's what happened. It wasn't that Romney was good; it wasn't that Romney was anything special. The reason that debate happened the way it did is because Obama had an off night. Obama was the shock and surprise. Obama was off his game. Obama was pathetic. Obama was pitiful.

You keep repeating it over and over and over again because you don't want people to realize how great Romney was. That's her theory, and I like it. It's unique. It's great thinking.

Here's the post, de-paraphrased. I got Rush Limbaugh's "great thinking" stamp of approval, which might get me in trouble out here in the vicinity of Lake Michigan.

Saying that Obama had a stinkeroo of a night is a way of avoiding the possibility that Romney is simply the better candidate.

If the remaining debates make the latter conclusion inescapable, watch lefties shift their focus to what a stinkeroo of a politician Obama turned out to be (now they tell us!). This, too, would entail a degree of wishful thinking. If Obama is undone, it will be not only because his political skills are lacking, but also because his record is poor.

And his record is poor because his ideas are bad. But as Matt Bai observes in the forthcoming issue of the New York Times magazine: "Political partisans will go to extraordinary lengths to blame the messenger rather than question the orthodoxies of their message."

Bai has one point that should give all Republicans pause. Demographics. More particularly, though he does not put it that way, the rise of Hispanics as a group. Republicans should own Hispanic votes. Hispanics are mostly aspirational immigrants or descendants of recent immigrants. They have all kinds of values and beliefs that are consistent with the Republicans. But Republicans have fucked it up with misguided and inflammatory immigration policies and rhetoric. Amazingly stupid.

The Mat Bai column must have been written before the first debate. He even mentions "three debates between Romney and Obama."

Clueless

He focuses on lowering taxes as problem for the Republicans when Obama own commission recommends the same thing.

I would agree that the Laffer curve seems less obvious with rates below 70% but the capital gains rate is the most important item now.

The left cannot bring itself to understand that the financial crisis was caused by the Democrats control of Fannie/Freddie and the requirement that banks lend to borrowers who can't repay without constantly inflating house prices. Obama, like Herbert Hoover in 1930, wants to keep house prices high when the market can't support them. Hoover wanted wages high and businesses went bankrupt.

Bai has one point that should give all Republicans pause. Demographics. More particularly, though he does not put it that way, the rise of Hispanics as a group. Republicans should own Hispanic votes. Hispanics are mostly aspirational immigrants or descendants of recent immigrants. They have all kinds of values and beliefs that are consistent with the Republicans. But Republicans have fucked it up with misguided and inflammatory immigration policies and rhetoric. Amazingly stupid.

-------------------

Inflammatory immigration policies...like trying to protect the borders of this nation.

"But Republicans have fucked it up with misguided and inflammatory immigration policies and rhetoric. Amazingly stupid."

The world is full of potential Republican voters who want to immigrate legally and build the economy. Democrats know they are better off importing illegals who are illiterate peasants and will depend on government for three or four generations. The Mexican immigrants of the 1940s and 50s came here to work and succeed. The ones who come now, come to save up and go back to Mexico.

Bai has one point that should give all Republicans pause. Demographics. More particularly, though he does not put it that way, the rise of Hispanics as a group. Republicans should own Hispanic votes. Hispanics are mostly aspirational immigrants or descendants of recent immigrants. They have all kinds of values and beliefs that are consistent with the Republicans. But Republicans have fucked it up with misguided and inflammatory immigration policies and rhetoric. Amazingly stupid.

------------------

values consistent with republicans. lol holy shit.

You mean like Mexican Hispanics, whose home country has legalized gay marriage?

@David Speaking as a Californian, that old trope isn't necessarily true anymore as the generations pass by. It was when I was a kid (more or less), but not so much now. The second and third gens are much different from the first, as are the more recent immigrants.

Confusing this is the issue of older line Mexican immigrants vs newer SA immigrants, Guatemalans for example. These groups tend to be lumped together by non-hispanics, when they have completely different dynamics.

This is just human nature. You see this in sports all the time. When your favorite team is crushed you don't say "wow, we were OK but those other guys rocked!". Instead, you just say something like "we sucked."

They don't but news organizations like Univison are slowly changing this thanks to Erich Holder's colossal arrogance. Imagine releasing weapons into the American population as part of a big experiment wherein civilians get killed. Holder's arrogance was to assume that Mexican lives were worth less than American's.

Matt Bai ends his piece by saying, "You can channel the extremists, or you can lead your party toward modernity, but you really can’t do both." But that's an insight that applies to both parties. Obama's approach has been one of channeling the progressive or "liberal" extremists of his party, even when his plans alienated large numbers of voters. And the Democratic Party's current dedication to preserving and expanding every element of the New Deal and the post-World War II compromise certainly could not be called leading the country toward modernity—in fact, what the Democrats favor is the real conservative option.

The idea that everybody who's taken a side, in a contest between two losers, is engaged in wishful thing - that it's not just the other guys - is clearly too much to handle. Too much to even entertain, of course.

No, they must INSIST the self-flattery embedded in the idea that Romney, with the out-of-this-world belief system of Joseph Smith, is somehow superior to Obama's out-of-this world belief system of Oprah "The Secret" Winfrey, is correct because, otherwise, their self-identity as intelligent human beings - just like the Dems - will fall apart.

Didn't they just show that testosterone levels rise or fall with the losers?

The fact that they're insisting on people who never had their feet on the ground - which Obama's "green" nonsense and Romney's belief in cold fusion proves - MUST be ignored to keep the charade going:

What put it over the line from "interesting but wrong" to Rush Limbaugh territory was saying that this was a conspiracy by "colluding" pundits. Right. Chris Matthews and Andrew Sullivan were just pretending to melt down to hide the fact that Mitt Romney is Great.

Wow, I get to disagree with both the professor and Rush in one comment. You are both kinda right and kinda wrong.

As debates go, it wasn't a blowout. It was two semi-wonky guys trying to not screw up. They each succeeded well enough at that. Edge to Mitt on presence.

Importantly though, the teamObama/MSM response is based on their perspective, not yours. You note, "Here's why they did it. Romney was so much better than Obama".

The more telling perspective is theirs, which is, " Obama wasn't so much better than Romney". The expectation was that he would be.

And, response is a function of the difference between real outcome and expected outcome.

So, what was the expected outcome? It was an Aaron Sorkin written quality smackdown. That expectation is the product of the echo chamber distillery. Their reference point was simply wrong. It was an illusion crafted in Hollywood.

Cynical as I am, the response was not a calculation. It was simply a realization begging a recalculation.

You and Rush are both clever. In this case though, too much so by half.

Oh my God. What if Rush starts commenting here under a pen name? Then the entire blog will become a mutual admiration society. Their back and forth thinking will wear out us mere mortals.

The Issa hearings are Rush's big deal today. The truth being revealed could cause a total lack of applicants to become American Ambassadors. At least they could not buy life insurance a standard rates.

Several commenters need to be reminded that prior to the Louisiana Purchase almost all the land west of the Mississippi, all the way up into Canada, was Spanish territory, and that Napoleon only claimed to sell the French territory, New Orleans and a stretch up along the river. Jefferson just took advantage of the situation to claim everything not actually settled by Spain, and neither France nor Spain was in a position to lodge much of a protest at the end of the wars.

Now, in New Mexico the great land grant swindles were perpetrated under Republican auspices after the Civil War, which naturally made Democrats out of most of the Mexican population in northern New Mexico, but not all. In southern New Mexico, there are quite a few that are descended from the "California Column," an expedition organized by California Republicans and sent to New Mexico to oppose the Confederate invasion of 1862, and more, whose families became Republican in opposition to the depredations of the former Texas Confederates that swarmed into our state after the Civil War.And in both areas there are people who became Republicans for other reasons too, so it is not all that one-sided.

Then also, what I have seen of the "illegals" recently arrived have been very industrious hard-working and dead honest people, who came here becausee the Mexican government drove their country into the ditch, and they went north looking for opportunity, just like my ancestors arrived in "Little Norway" when things got cold and dear in 19th century Norway.

There is no reason, other than sheer stupidity, why the Republican Party should abandon these people and just automatically assume them to bee natural born Democrats. They aren't.

Confusing this is the issue of older line Mexican immigrants vs newer SA immigrants, Guatemalans for example. These groups tend to be lumped together by non-hispanics, when they have completely different dynamics.

I'll go you one better. I'm in Phoenix and the facility I work at is in an industrial section of town. The surrounding neighborhoods are a mix of low income assimilated Mexicans and recent arrivals. Just down the road from me is Sonoran Auto Repair, two blocks from that is Mechanica Sinaloa, and another couple of blocks from that is a guy from Jalisco who fixes car a/c's.

What's the significance? In my experience the Mexican community still thinks along old country regional lines to some extent. No Sonoran in his right mind is going to let a Sinaloan fix his car! Them Sinaloans think cars got square wheels!

Our political classes have totally misread the situation. Chicano's in LA and Puerto Ricans in NYC may vote as a bloc, but most Hispanics are far more complex than that!

America's Politico is Baghdad Bob. (Bahdad Bob wasn't killed in the fighting BTW. He was questioned and released and now lives in the UAE.) I'm just saying: AP generates eerily similar blatantly obvious propaganda.

North, I've noticed the same thing. Hispanic is no more than a linguistic heritage group - I worked with a guy from Colombia and it fascinated me that he pronounced the double ell like a J and not a Y as Mexicans would.

Also the way it works is that if the Romeros and the Chavezes are in a dispute about a right-of-way, or whatever, and the Romeros get help from the local Democrat pol, an aspiring Republican should politely and delicately offer his assistance to the Chavezes.

If he appears to really help, he may get the whole clan, even if not successful.

Let's have some sympathy for our host here: She is a boastful undecided but has gotten kudos from a popular but supposedly right-wing fanatical talk show host. What is the poor girl to do? Why, she must find some way to publish the compliment but simultaneously criticize its form.

To have a guy like Rush, who's spoken about NewAge as I see it - and claims to live in Realsville - backing Romney.

I mean, Romney follows Joseph Smith, who had a "seer stone" scam (NewAge) a gold digging scam (NewAge) angels (NewAge) multiple gods (NewAge) multiple gods on other planets (NewAge) plus subversively mixed a smorgasbord of religions together - from pure NewAge hooey to the Abrahamic (which is also pure NewAge) and still Rush says nothing.

Rush could actually save this country - by pointing out how far down the road to La-La-Land we've traveled to find ourselves here - and, instead, he's fighting to preserve the status quo of NewAge nonsense running the show. It's even running HIS show now, like he's somebody living in Rio Linda.

He - of all people - should see the wisdom of us now putting a real world, non-racial economist, like Thomas Sowell, in the White House, rather than another cult fruitcake with a wife tripping on some kind of eugenics program (you can't make this stuff up) as supposedly a worthy replacement for the last crew.

Crack, You have to judge Romney by the fruit of his labors, not by your projection of the faults of the religion onto him. I believe Romney has an actual records of doing great public service. His character might be formed by his interpretation of the Book of Mormon. But he knows how to lead in a secular society.

By your standards we can put that same label on pretty much any person. Mainstream Mormonism is a few generations removed from extreme cultism. It still has its nut jobs but they are the exception rather than the rule.

It's just not true. The meme has always included plenty of Romney-did-very-well talk. Remember what Chris Mathews said very emphatically that night: "You know what Romney was doing? He was winning!"

There has always been plenty of that "Romney did great" talk, even from left wing people, because it was obvious. So, this "great thinking" is just not based in fact. It's a strawman, but yes, very creatively immolated, if you're into that kind of thing.

Crack, You have to judge Romney by the fruit of his labors, not by your projection of the faults of the religion onto him.

Nope - garbage in/garbage out - people who hold crazy beliefs eventually act on them, and claiming it hasn't happened yet is no reason to put our country in that trajectory. Not to mention, you're then endorsing those beliefs yourself - giving that nonsense about indians being the lost tribe of israel credibility. What are you going to say when the kids tell you the president says so? He's an idiot and a liar? Well, why'd you vote for an idiot and a liar? And, if you'll vote for an idiot and a liar, why should they trust YOU? There's no end to it, and you can't put the genie back in the bottle once you open it - there goes YOUR credibility, along with his, and faith in not only the country but information itself.

Althouse is a lively writer with many interesting and original insights into the passing scene. That's reason enough to read her, but beyond that she's a fan of Limbaugh's. Apparently she listens to him every day in toto. My guess is that there are not too many witty professors among Limbaugh's fan base. Perhaps he's as flattered by her attention as she is by his. Let the logs roll forth.

Because he's batshit crazy. Romney is not batshit crazy, and you sound batshit crazy when you try to spin him as batshit crazy. In fact it makes me batshit crazy dealing with your batshit craziness. Why does this election have to be about batshit crazy? What did Romney say in the debate that was batshit crazy, Crack? Anything? It's ridiculous.

Since you think Romney is batshit crazy, you think the "honest" response would be to say, "I hear voices all the time. I am batshit crazy."

But Romney is not batshit crazy. And since he is not batshit crazy, he doesn't hear voices in his head, Crack.

Elsewhere on this thread you mock people who follow Abraham. Which is every Jew and Christian. But don't let that slow you down!

The Bible has a story about Abraham, who is told by God to kill his son in a sacrifice.

Yes, God is talking to Abraham. And not only is Abraham hearing God's voice, the voice is telling him to kill his son!

There are all kinds of interesting theological issues here. For instance, God is asking Abraham to make a sacrifice that God himself will make with Jesus.

But the reporter is not interested in theology, or understanding Genesis. The reporter's question is a bear trap because she wants to portray Romney as batshit crazy. "Should God speak to you" is secular-speak for "Are you crazy?"

And Romney, who is a politican, answers the question with humor. "I don't recall God speaking to me."

That's not a lie. Is it?

And then Romney says he doesn't recall God speaking to anyone since Moses at the burning bush. And "perhaps a few other people."

He's not being dishonest, nor is he dismissing his Mormon faith. He's skillfully avoiding a trap.

Like this reporter, you are attacking his Mormon faith. If you and she were honest, you would be making the same attack on any Christian or Jew who was running for office.

For a batshit crazy religios fanatic, Romney sure does spend a lot of time talking about economics. Why don't you try that?

Crack,I'm starting to get the feeling you don't like Romney very much.

You've hidden it very well, tho, I don't think most people noticed.

I'm sincerely confused/frustrated as to why we pick leaders who regularly lie and say crazy things - not to mention participating in cults - and then I'm forced to watch as segments of the public rise up to vigorously defend them when they're caught lying and saying crazy things.